262 F. Supp. 3d 1089
W.D. Wash.2017Background
- Cynthia Stewart, a long‑time customer service rep at Snohomish PUD, suffers chronic migraines treated with prescription narcotics (Dilaudid) that can cause sedating side effects; she periodically took intermittent FMLA leave for treatment.
- PUD has a Fitness for Duty policy forbidding working while impaired and authorizing drug testing based on a Reasonable Suspicion Checklist; policy made no exception for prescription medications.
- After supervisors observed signs they perceived as impairment on Oct. 17, 2014, and Apr. 7, 2015, Stewart was sent for drug testing; tests detected hydromorphone; PUD required a Return to Work Agreement and drug dependency screening.
- Stewart signed the Agreement, was placed on forced leave pending screening and testing, later returned to work, and was terminated in May 2015 for coming to work while allegedly impaired and for testing positive.
- Stewart sued under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), the FMLA, and the Washington Family Leave Act (WFLA); after a bench trial the court found for Stewart on WLAD failure‑to‑accommodate and disparate treatment claims, but for PUD on FMLA/WFLA claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Stewart’s migraines and medication side effects are a "disability" under WLAD | Stewart: migraines and medication side effects are medically cognizable and perceived as impairing, thus protected | PUD: effects of narcotics are not protected when they cause workplace impairment | Held: Both migraines and medication side effects are protected under WLAD (including perceived impairment); WLAD protection applies here |
| Whether PUD failed to reasonably accommodate Stewart’s disability | Stewart: PUD disciplined rather than engaging in interactive process or offering accommodations (e.g., extended post‑injection leave, check‑ins) | PUD: followed policy; could require absence while impaired; Stewart failed to communicate needed accommodations | Held: PUD failed to reasonably accommodate — it pursued discipline instead of a continuing interactive process |
| Whether PUD’s adverse actions constituted unlawful disparate treatment under WLAD | Stewart: adverse actions were based on disability‑protected conduct (medication symptoms) | PUD: actions were business necessity/safety‑based; managers acted in good faith under policy | Held: PUD discriminated — termination and other adverse actions were motivated by Stewart’s perceived impairment and violated WLAD; defenses rejected |
| Whether PUD violated FMLA/WFLA by using Stewart’s leave as a negative factor | Stewart: her taking FMLA leave was a factor in discipline/termination | PUD: discipline was prompted by observed impairment and drug test results, not leave usage | Held: PUD prevailed — plaintiff did not prove a causal link between taking FMLA leave and adverse actions |
Key Cases Cited
- Clipse v. Commercial Driver Servs., Inc., 358 P.3d 464 (Wash. App. 2015) (distinguishes failure‑to‑accommodate and disparate treatment under WLAD)
- Humphrey v. Memorial Hospitals Ass’n, 239 F.3d 1128 (9th Cir. 2001) (conduct resulting from disability is part of the disability for ADA analysis)
- Gambini v. Total Renal Care, Inc., 486 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir. 2007) (medication‑related symptoms can bear on disability protection)
- McAlindin v. County of San Diego, 192 F.3d 1226 (9th Cir. 1999) (treatment side effects may constitute disability under ADA)
- Riehl v. Foodmaker, Inc., 94 P.3d 930 (Wash. 2004) (outlines elements of reasonable accommodation under WLAD)
- Johnson v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 244 P.3d 438 (Wash. App. 2010) (employer need not provide an accommodation causing undue hardship)
- Frisino v. Seattle Sch. Dist., 249 P.3d 1044 (Wash. App. 2011) (employer's duty to accommodate is continuing; interactive process required)
- MacKay v. Acorn Custom Cabinetry, Inc., 898 P.2d 284 (Wash. 1995) (disparate treatment standard under WLAD)
- Bunch v. King County Dep’t of Youth Servs., 116 P.3d 381 (Wash. 2005) (proof required for emotional damages under WLAD)
- Fey v. State, 300 P.3d 435 (Wash. App. 2013) (BFOQ standard is narrow)
- Xin Liu v. Amway Corp., 347 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir. 2003) (FMLA interference requires showing leave was a negative factor)